OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,230VRAM:32 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):300 W

GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 69% of models
Score components

40%

8.4

Technical score

25%

7.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 69% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

4.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 82%
8.4

Technical score

Technical score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 74% of models
Score components

44%

8.5

Performance

24%

8.6

Memory

12%

5.9

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

9.9

Connectivity

â–²Better than 74%
7.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 56%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • gigabyte-radeon-ai-pro-r9700-ai-top
gigabyte-radeon-ai-pro-r9700-ai-top
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP

Technical score
Technical score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 74% of models
Score components:

44%

8.5

Performance

24%

8.6

Memory

12%

5.9

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

9.9

Connectivity

8.4
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

4.0

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
22,496 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 22,496 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 73% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
32,860 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 32,860 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 82.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
17,260 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 17,260 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 67.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
47.84 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 80.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
32 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 32 GB of VRAM, which is more than 96.6% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
640 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 640 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 66.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
20,100 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 20,100 MHz, which is faster than that of 61% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5
This graphics card supports PCIe 5, which is newer than on 73% of graphics cards and equal to 27% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2.1a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1a, which is more advanced than on 74.2% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
54 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 54 Gbps, which is faster than on 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
300 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 300 W, which is higher than that of 72.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
300 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 300 W under peak load, which is higher than 70.3% of graphics cards and equal to 4.4% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
300 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 300 W, which is higher than that of 68.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
300 W
Show more
Size
267x 111x 40 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
40 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 40 mm tall, which is shorter than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 35.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 14.7% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,490 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,490 g, which is heavier than 73.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 16.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 20 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (32 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    32 GB vs 12 GB
  • 200 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (384 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    384 vs 184
  • 64 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (128 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    128 vs 64
  • 2.32x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (373.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    373.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 97.8% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 24 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    64 vs 40
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 6.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 7.2
  • 16.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 200 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (384 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    384 vs 184
  • 64 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (128 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    128 vs 64
  • 2.32x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (373.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    373.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 97.8% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 24 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    64 vs 40
  • 24 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    64 vs 40
  • 2.12x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (47.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    47.84 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 45.2% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (32,860 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    32,860 points vs 22,638 points
  • 2 years newer
    This graphics card was released more recently than the average graphics card (2025 vs 2023).
    October 2025
    2025 vs 2023
  • 52.2% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (22,496 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    22,496 points vs 14,779 points
  • 10.79x higher BF16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher BF16 performance than the average graphics card (382.7 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has BF16 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS.
    382.7 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS
  • 3.13x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.5 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.5 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3.24x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (95.7 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    95.7 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3.17x higher INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a higher INT8 performance than the average graphics card (766 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    766 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 20 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (32 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    32 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 43.9% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,518 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,518 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 42.9% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (640 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    640 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 16x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (64 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    64 MB vs 4 MB
  • 5.8% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (20,100 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    20,100 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5 vs 4
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2.35x more transistors
    This graphics card has more transistors than the average graphics card (53,900 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    53,900 million vs 22,900 million
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1a vs 1.4a).
    2.1a vs 1.4a
  • Newer HDMI version
    This graphics card supports a newer HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 2.1a).
    2.1b vs 2.1a
  • 2.5x higher DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (40 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    40 mm vs 125 mm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • 15.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,620 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,620 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 2.37x more expensive
    GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,230 vs £520).
    £1,230 vs £520
  • 9.7% worse value for money
    GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.76 vs 7.4).
    6.76 vs 7.41
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 15.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,620 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,620 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 16 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (128 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    128 vs 144
  • 75% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (32 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    32 KB vs 128 KB
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (8 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    8 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 3).
    2.2 vs 3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 36.4% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 22.5 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (57.9 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    57.9 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 3.33x higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (40 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    40 W vs 12 W
  • 36.4% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 46.9% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,490 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,490 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
TheOverclocker
≈ estimated
21/10/2026
Gaming performance review · temperature, power and tuning tests
Verdict
GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP has excellent gaming performance, but it's only worth buying if AI or professional workloads justify the price.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.6
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
29/05/2026
Teardown · AI workstation GPU
Verdict
The GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP is a two-slot 32GB card suited to AI work and video editing, though it trails its gaming version in graphics benchmarks.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP

  • High VRAM capacity (32GB) allows running larger models that typically require more expensive Nvidia hardware.
  • Excellent value for AI inference, costing significantly less than high-end Nvidia cards like the RTX 5090.
  • Blower-style design and recessed fan allow for efficient multi-GPU stacking in small workstations or rack setups.
  • Short physical length (267mm) makes it compatible with many Small Form Factor (SFF) PC builds.
  • Good performance for mixed-use cases, including 4K gaming and 3D work, comparable to an RTX 5070 Ti in games.
  • Support for modern standards like PCIe 5.0 and DisplayPort 2.1a.

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP

  • Loud cooling system, as the blower-style fan can be very noisy under heavy workloads.
  • Lack of CUDA support requires users to use ROCm or Vulkan, which can be less optimized for some AI software.
  • Lower memory bandwidth compared to high-end competitors, which may bottleneck specific inference tasks.
  • Poor driver support on certain operating systems; full LTS support for Ubuntu may not arrive until version 26.04.
  • Limited 3D rendering performance in applications like Blender when compared to Nvidia's OptiX and RTX cores.
  • Higher entry price for gamers who do not specifically need the extra VRAM for AI workloads.

Verdict

The GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP is a professional-grade workstation graphics card based on the RDNA 4 architecture, specifically engineered for local AI inference and development. Key specifications include 32GB of GDDR6 memory with ECC support (in Linux), a 256-bit memory interface providing 640 GB/s bandwidth, 4,096 stream processors, 128 second-generation AI accelerators, and a 300W TDP. Its primary advantages are its dual-slot blower-style cooling system designed for multi-GPU scalability, high VRAM capacity for running large language models at a lower price point than competitors, and a PCIe 5.0 interface for high-speed data transfers. However, potential drawbacks include its reliance on slightly slower GDDR6 memory compared to GDDR7 alternatives, the inherent noise level of blower-style fans under heavy load, and the lack of native CUDA support, which may limit compatibility with certain proprietary AI software stacks.

Compare GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GIGABYTE Radeon AI PRO R9700 AI TOP and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found